Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 3

< May 2	May 4 >

May 3[edit]

File:Black Mirror - White Christmas.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2020 May 30. FASTILY 06:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Mirror - White Christmas.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Black Mirror - Playtest (Black Mirror).jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2020 June 27. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 05:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Mirror - Playtest (Black Mirror).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Shut Up and Dance (Black Mirror).jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The rationals' claim that the character is "nervous" in this shot is questionable. Nor is that something that needs a visual element to show people and the image can be omitted without confusing the reader. --Masem (t) 13:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The distinct English setting was noted by reviewers, as it differs from the other series three episodes produced after the show's move to a U.S. company. I liked this image as a very clear depiction of an English setting (at least in my eyes). It is Lawther's acting, not his physical body, that garnered critical commentary (as well as Hector—maybe we could show them interacting) and a single frame chosen well is enough to portray how a character is acted. Perhaps you can suggest a better frame here. — Bilorv (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging The Rambling Man, who determined in July 2019 that the article met GA criterion #6(a). — Bilorv (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rational is just fine as described. Difficult to see why this is problematic for anyone else to identify. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:14, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there are other scenes that could better represent the character's distress or the story in general. could have been a pic of him crying, holding a gun, using the computer, so on... this one lacks a stronger link with the plot to properly justify the rational. Daveout (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 03:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see a connection between this image and the plot, as described in prose. This fails NFCC 8. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Black Mirror - Men Against Fire.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2020 May 30. FASTILY 06:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Black Mirror - Men Against Fire.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Be Right Back.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2020 May 30. FASTILY 06:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Be Right Back.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Black Mirror - The Entire History of You.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no specific rationale on this image, or critical commentary on the specific scene to justify the use of this image. There needs to be sourced discussion for such a shot to be used. --Masem (t) 13:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the rationale for using this copyrighted material is "Key element of the episode" without explaining how it's crucial to understanding the accompanying prose and how readers' understanding of the article prose is diminished without having this image. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rationale just needs to be updated to indicate the nature of the relationship of the image with the implants and the article. Intrinsically linked. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (vehemently) : it depicts a key aspect of the story: the "eye-recorder" thing Daveout (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Daveout, Where does WP:NFCC justify key aspects of stories? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Hi, Justin. Because a tv show (or a movie) rely heavily on visuals to tell a story. That's the heart of this type of audio-visual media. This isn't a book that relies solely on words. For that reason, I think it is important to show, visually, at least the most important character(s) or event(s) of the story. Readers could understand the gist of the story without the image? Probably. The inclusion of the image could increase the understanding of what is being described (as required by wp:nfcc)? In my opinion, YES!. Therefore it meets every criterion of wp:nfcc Daveout (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Daveout, Including the entire episode would increase understanding, wouldn't it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Hi, Justin. Looks like you're struggling to distinguish an encyclopedia from a movie streaming service. I recommend a dictionary. Daveout (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Daveout, Hey, rather than be rude, how about you discuss in good faith? Did you know that we have videos on Wikipedia? Our sister project c: hosts them. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 03:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "grain" effect that the image is supposed to illustrate is so simple that it can be described adequately in prose. This fails NFCC 8. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: can you either add such an explanation to the article, or describe precisely how such a change could be done, bearing in mind WP:V? — Bilorv (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's already in the article: "Every time a character plays back something on their grain, their eyes glow dully as the images are accessed, giving them a demonic look. I'm sure that was an intentional decision." The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is. Thanks for the reply. — Bilorv (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Mrs Right and Mrs Wrong - Sylvia Ashby.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to retain. The debate centered on WP:NFCC#1 and whether Ashby's presence in the image is an indispensable part of the encyclopedic content. Those advocating deletion contend that the same encyclopedic value could be gained from a freely licensed photo of mannequins in the same positions. Those advocating keep contend that the encyclopedic value is Ashby demonstrating the mannequins, not the mannequins themselves, and so there is a historical value that cannot be recreated.

Ultimately there is no consensus that the image satisfies the local or global non-free content policies. Usually a no consensus result defaults to the status quo which would be retention of the image. However our local policy requires a valid fair use rationale in order to retain non-free content, and so a result of no consensus defaults to delete. — Wug·a·po·des 04:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking this to FFD because the original person who tagged this seems to believe that it has no place in the article. However, I wrote an entire part about this photo in the article Sylvia Rose Ashby. Other sources have cited this photo as well. What I wrote in the article is this:

In a later interview with Australian Women's Weekly, she showed two small wooden, jointed mannequins – one showing "Mrs. Right" and the other "Mrs. Wrong". Mrs. Right, she explained, "is erect, relaxed; the left arm (holding her bag and papers) is slightly to the rear; the right arm is forward; the head is slightly tilted – she is the epitome of confidence." Mrs. Wrong, however, "is a bundle of nerves; head downcast, bag clutched to her – the epitome of apologetic timidity." Those who displayed a lack of appropriate deportment, she maintained, would cause suspicion and sometimes hostility, and the interviewee would be unresponsive to questioning, leading to poor survey results.

This is literally illustrating this point, it is quite hard to see what she means without the photo. Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I see that the image is discussed at length in the article Sylvia Rose Ashby and is essential in illustrating a part of Ashby's methodology. I think the image meets WP:NFCI #9 and all of WP:NFCCP. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I think that it's now been several months into this discussion and there is no consensus to delete. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (having followed the link from ANI). I know this isn't what you want to hear, but to me this is an absolutely clear-cut deletion. Since it's only used to illustrate the pose of the two artists mannequins, rather than the person behind them, it would be trivially easy to beg, borrow or steal two mannequins and photograph them in the same pose. As such, it doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1 {no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose)—which is WMF-mandated policy—and consequently whether or not it meets the subsidiary WP:NFCI (which is a guideline and always trumped by the policy section above it) is irrelevant. ‑ Iridescent 15:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That’s not what it got tagged as. It was NFCC#8. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - A non-free use needs to comply with all ten of the WP:NFCCP and the use isn't considered policy compliant even if it only fails just one of the ten; so, it makes no real difference as to why a non-free file might have been originally tagged for deletion/review if another criterion is also subsequently determined not to be being met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still maintain that it complies with all ten of WP:NFCCP – there is no free equivalent image available of Ashby demonstrating her method. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - As do I, and I respectfully disagree with Iridescent. In this case it is not about the mannequins solely, but the fact she used them, her opinion that she could use them to judge women based on their deportment and the fact she used them in such a way for publicity. It also highlights the prevailing views of women at the time, even from a strong, independent business woman. When they say an image is worth a thousand words, then this is a prime example of such a thing. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        They also say WP:WORTHATHOUSAND on WP:AAFFD. Marchjuly (talk) — 13:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC); [Note: This post was made by me. I must have signed with five tildes by mistake. My apologies for any confusion that may have caused. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)][reply]
        Not sure who I’m responding to, but I did give a substantial argument for keeping the image, I didn’t just rest on the adage alone. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do see there being value in having Sylvia Rose Ashby in the background doing the demonstration and "essential in illustrating a part of Ashby's methodology." Having just two mannequins would not adequately replicate what is currently communicated in the picture and. Epachamo (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC 1, 3, and 8. The contextually significant part of the image is the mannequins, not Ashby in the background. This part of the image can be reproduced and freely licensed. Another (non-free) image is already being used to identify Ashby. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not true. It is Ashby using the mannequins. She was literally demonstrating her usage of mannequins to make a point only she wanted to make. It's absolutely Ashby using the mannequins to make her point. Take Ashby out of the equation and there is no need to even mention them... so I'm not sure what "context" you are referring to! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it isn't clear, the context is Ashby using mannequins to demonstrate her opinion to The Women's Weekly that women needing proper deportment. It's ridiculous to say that you can actually replace this with a picture of mannequins without Ashby in it, the image literally shows what she was saying, in a historical context. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral (leaning toward "(weak) delete")~~ - As far as I see, a paragraph in Sylvia Rose Ashby#Formation of the Ashby Research Service (diff) describing the two mannequins seems to be cited by the source that also used the photo itself. I was close to voting for keep, but then I couldn't find other reliable sources in Google describing what Ashby was doing. I figure that other print sources covering this exists. As-is right now, I thought that Ashby's mannequin portrayals in the article appear overemphasized or over-detailed. "Contextual significance" is.... kinda murky to interpret at first; WP:NFC#CS clarified more, saying that undue weight and imbalance are discouraged. As said before, without other reliable sources proving the significance of the whole magazine interview, I would consider the paragraph too overly detailed. This sounds as if I would favor deletion, but then I see the image's potential. The picture was made decades ago, and seems to have been part of women's history. If more improvements proving significance associated with the photo have been made, then I would switch to "keep". George Ho (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m happy to improve this but I’m not clear how to do this. Did you need some commentary? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides just the magazine interview, Have you searched for available print sources, including digitally scanned ones and others unavailable online, depicting the two mannequins? George Ho (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you mean an exact one where Ashby shows the mannequins in an almost identical interview? Well, no. But I have done extensive searches for all the newspaper and magazine articles she was ever reported in, and so far as I can see there is no such thing. I'm not sure what you are asking for here! It doesn't make much sense... besides which, Trove scanned in every publication she was ever involved in. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since no other articles describing her using the two mannequins have been found as of date, I begin to see no benefit from keeping the image. Switching to, regrettably, delete. Whether the passage about her interview using the two mannequin can be left as-is or trimmed down to comply with WP:UNDUE is another issue that can be discussed at another time then. --George Ho (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NFCC#1, fair use image replaceable by a free image that could be created. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been explained a few times now, this is a historical image that cannot be replaced. - 23:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 03:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Iridescent and George Ho. I can understand the good faith in arguing to keep this image, but policy trumps even good faith. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't you retired? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Should I Stay or Should I Go single covers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2020 May 30. FASTILY 06:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:ClashStayorGosingle.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Should I Stay or Should I Go by The Clash 1991 rerelease.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Jaki Graham - Ain't Nobody.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2020 May 30. FASTILY 06:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jaki Graham - Ain't Nobody.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Star Trek Picard season 2 poster.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Identification images are standard for season articles. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This fails NFCC criteria #8. There's nothing in it at all that significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the poster that we have for the season at the moment, and it is justified pretty clearly in the image summary like any other poster (whether you deem this one to be different from others or not). The image itself will also be replaced with subsequent posters as they become available, and so this file is only going to become more applicable and useful. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, used in the infobox to identify the subject of the article. Pretty standard use. Salavat (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NFCC 8 as removing the image would not in any way reduce readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Standard poster and early promotion piece for a new series.Bailo26 09:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 03:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Salavat. --evrik ^(talk) 02:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Salavat. - Flori4nKT A L K 09:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:I wont not use no double negatives.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Does not add significantly to the reader's understanding of double negatives. A stronger case could perhaps be made for its inclusion in The Simpsons opening sequence#Chalkboard gag, but that was not discussed in this FfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the file be deleted because it doesn't meet WP:NFCC criteria #1 and #8. It is an image from The Simpsons on the article double negative used to illustrate the use of double negatives in film and television. It's not clear what makes the image from The Simpsons a particularly canonical example for this topic; it's just a single use of a double negative with no academic or critical commentary, not the first usage of its kind or a ground-breaking one. It has a free equivalent - simply describing the chalkboard gag in text - and its absence would not remove any knowledge of what double negatives are or how they are used in fiction. — Bilorv (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely decorative and fails NFCC #8 by an egregious amount. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An illustrative example of a real world usage that shows whimsy and humor. The iconic opening scene of Bart Simpson at the chalkboard, The Simpsons opening sequence#Chalkboard gag, is culturally relative. There is no free equivalent, so it WP:NFCC criteria #1. Its real world usage applies to #8. As for context or commentary, I thought it existed at one point. I added something back in, though I will note that the caption did explain the image. --evrik ^(talk) 14:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're misunderstanding NFCC #8. "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. (emphasis mine). There's no way that a non-free illustration of a double negative written out is critical to understanding the concept of double negatives. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it’s illustrating the “In film and TV” section, so I think what I said was relevant.--evrik ^(talk) 23:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - What makes it a good illustration? Why is this particular chalkboard gag a canonical or groundbreaking use of a double negative in media? Did it spark academic commentary, subsequent cultural allusions to it or widespread cultural recognition (the rationale describes it as "iconic" with no evidence provided)? Or is it just one of a million frames from a million different TV shows that we could screengrab? The "free equivalent" is describing the image if it's received widespread secondary source coverage, or describing actual long-term significant uses of double negatives in fiction if not. — Bilorv (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bilorv, you are adding requirements above what is required: it is an illustrative example of a real world usage, the image is culturally relative. There is no free equivalent, so it WP:NFCC criteria #1. Its real world usage applies to #8. It has both context and commentary. --evrik ^(talk) 17:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Evrik: I've described the free equivalent twice. Please read WP:BLUDGEON and listen to other people's opinions rather than trying to "win" the "argument". — Bilorv (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Evrik: Please show me the free equivalent. This is not about winning anymore than it is about voting. --evrik ^(talk) 20:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Please re-read my earlier comments, where you can find the answer to your question. — Bilorv (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- You mean when you say, "simply describing the chalkboard gag in text?" That's not equivalent. There is no image currently available that is a free equivalent. --evrik ^(talk) 02:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the stated use it's ok, and meets fair use requirements. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I copied the chalkboard gag quote from "Hello Gutter, Hello Fadder" just to improve the text's conveyance of the gag itself in "double negative" article. Either the gag itself can be conveyed in computerized text alone, or the readers can go the episode link to see the gag in case that the quote is removed. We can trust most readers, including casual readers, to already grasp what the info says about The Simpsons episode. In other words, the screenshot neither adds anything new nor is necessary to illustrate words that already are grasped by readers. If an image is needed, then a freely licensed image should do. Even then, I don't think an image is needed. George Ho (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You just strengthened the case for keeping it, thank you.--evrik ^(talk) 01:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misinterpret. Criterion #8 requires the screenshot to convey what the double negatives are mainly about, making deletion harmful to understanding what the article's main subject is about. WP:NFC#CS requires a file to comply with WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, both part of WP:NPOV, even when an accompanying text is well sourced. However, the screenshot of one of Bart's chalkboard gags doesn't add anything new or valuable to understanding what double negatives are, and an image is not needed for the already-understood "In film and TV" section. The image is just showing Bart doing his (frequent?) penalty, which is already adequately explained at The Simpsons opening sequence#Chalkboard gag, making any screenshot of a chalkboard gag unneeded and unnecessary. Furthermore, the double negative itself is the article subject, not usage of the term "double negative" in pop culture, already made into a section. Also, the gag screenshot doesn't explain what the double negative generally is but rather an example already conveyed by a text without any non-free content. George Ho (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 03:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus is "keep", can we close this now? --evrik ^(talk) 17:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

evrik, either the above is your double vote, or you can't decide how the consensus is concluded. Please await an uninvolved admin's evaluation. If you can't hold your patience any longer, then I suggest you request a closure at WP:ANRFC please. George Ho (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that this discussion has not gone anywhere in a while. --evrik ^(talk) 14:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFCC criteria #1 and #8 as per Bilorv. It's a cute thing to have in the article (Dude, I love the Simpsons), but that's not reason enough to grab a screenshot and include it in our article. IOW: Funny but not helpful to understanding the topic. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Bilorv added requirements above what is required: it is an illustrative example of a real world usage, the image is culturally relative. There is no free equivalent, so it WP:NFCC criteria #1. Its real world usage applies to #8. It has both context and commentary. --evrik ^(talk) 17:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Transnistrian Government campaign stay home, MVD PMR.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Status quo is retained by default. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright tag does not seem to apply to the content of the image. Also, usage does not seem to consistent with fair-use rules (does not bring anything to the article that cannot be represented with text). Strainu (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article 1.6: Copyright does not apply to:

other official documents,
political speech and speech spoken in litigation, the day news reports having the character of a simple press of information, and transferred to radio, television, published in other media information.

fair-use rules apply only to non-free content, this image does not bear copyright restrictions.

Miller.bird0 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "laws, judicial decisions, other official documents" is not the same as "everything that the government produces". Official documents is a category of legal works. This is also not a simple press release. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Squirrel Conspiracy Why does government Stay home campaign does not having the character of a simple press of information? Also In law, jurisprudence government Stay home order - the collection of rules imposed by authority, meeting the criteria of other official documents. Miller.bird0 (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "the day news reports having the character of a simple press of information". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such a simple image and such a big discussion. Miller.bird0 (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 03:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Cover arts of Venus (Shocking Blue song)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete the French image. Izno (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shocking blue venus Dutch vinyl.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

I uploaded the cover art of the Dutch single as replacement of the other image in 2015. Then I replaced the JPEG version with the PNG recently. Somehow, I found out that the Dutch cover art was replaced with the French cover art (eBay), using better image quality as rationale. Fortunately, I was able to reinsert the Dutch cover art before it would have been tagged as orphaned. I have wondered whether using both cover arts is compliant with WP:NFCC, especially "minimal number of items" and "contextual significance" criteria, MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation, and Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover.

If such use complies with neither, and if only one image should be used, then I think the Dutch cover art (the one with the reddish background) should be kept and the other ditched out. Also, the band is Dutch, and the record label where the song was recorded is Dutch. Moreover, even though the song was successful worldwide, especially in the Netherlands, France, and the US, the single had different, various artworks. Even the US single used neither artwork but a different one. Using the Dutch cover art illustrates how the single was manufactured, marketed and targeted at the time of release and how to represent the band well, hopefully, without offending the band (or anyone else). The cover also conveys a meaning of the song title (probably just for the fun of it?). I can't be certain whether having an alternative cover is necessary. Furthermore, showing the image of the band was already done by a free image of the band, used in the article, so I don't know why else, besides image readability and quality and reducing quantity, the French cover art should be used in lieu of the Dutch cover art and the free band photo. George Ho (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A second image, while not necessary, is certainly permissible, especially for an original rendition of a major hit song, particularly when there is valid rationale for using either. - JGabbard (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete File:Shocking blue venus Dutch vinyl.png as per NFCC3a, multiple images used where one would suffice. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle, why do you think the French cover art should be used rather than the Dutch one? I explained my reasons for preferring the Dutch cover art over the French one. George Ho (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really mind which one is deleted but they cannot both stay. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 03:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retain It's not going to break the encyclopedia to list both images. While I don't have examples to immediately share it's not like there aren't other worldwide hit singles with multiple covers. As to the ordering of them, that's an editorial matter. It is a Dutch band and as such the Dutch cover makes sense if only one can be there, but again that's an editorial question for consensus at the local article and Deletion is the wrong forum for that argument. 98.215.82.138 (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:HeartcatchPreCure.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2020 May 30. FASTILY 06:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:HeartcatchPreCure.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Blackwattle Bay Coal Bunker, Bridge Road Glebe, 1970s SCC Archives A-0034658.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2020 May 30. FASTILY 06:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blackwattle Bay Coal Bunker, Bridge Road Glebe, 1970s SCC Archives A-0034658.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Body 10 and Body 13.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC criteria 3a (minimal number of items) and criteria 8 (contextual significance). There are two different collages of reconstructions in the article. Both depicted victims are also included in File:Gacy victims.jpg. There is no discussion about these two victims that would warrant a separate image. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this image should remain. Not least because active efforts are underway to identify the remaining six decedents, and these two (more advanced) reconstructions were only released to the media in 2018. Definitely not a failure of the criteria of NFCC8. The removal of this image "would be detrimental" for that fact.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The full text of NFCC criteria 8 is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." (bolding mine). So while you're correct that leaving the images would likely be in the public good, they are not vital to the understanding of the subject of the article, John Wayne Gacy. The best case scenario would be for the producers of the reconstructions to release the images under a free license, so that they can be more readily disseminated. However, unless that is done, we can't use those images in this article.

One thing to consider is that if you think that there are enough sources to justify an article on the victims of John Wayne Gacy, or on the unidentified victims specifically, then you could create an article on that topic, and this image would likely be justifiable for that article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of this, and the boundaries. It is just my opinion, which I am sure, is at least invited here.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'd like this file to stay, I can see why there is some concern that it does not specifically pertain to Gacy himself. Although people here tend to say the "other stuff exists" argument is invalid, I do feel it's worth pointing out that non-free victim images frequently appear in other serial killer's articles. Otherwise, there is potential that a page (or pages) could be written solely about these two victims.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 01:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but there's another reconstruction image right next to the one I nominated for deletion. Justifying non-free content per criteria 3A becomes exponentially harder the more non-free images there are in an article. I just don't see how you can justify two reconstruction images, though I would not be opposed to this one staying and the other one being removed, if the editors that work with that article prefer this one over the other. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would rather keep file Body 10 and Body 13.jpg, if users such as Gourami Watcher and MisterCake agree. The reason is, they are more advanced and recent reconstructions than the image of the array released to the media in 1980 (three of whom have since been identified and that array also including earlier reconstructions of these two images).--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I too would rather keep those. The older picture contains some already identified and is of limited use compared to the more modern reconstructions. One would be hard pressed to tell one from the other of the older reconstructions. Cake (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FASTILY 03:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete despite the public good argument, I don't see policy based support for retention.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it has to go, it has to go. Not that I personally wish it would. The original uploader (GouramiWatcher) has already given consensus for deletion. Consensus governs, and I don't wish this issue to remain in suspension. Kudos to all--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:WestcliffUWarriorsLogo.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2020 May 30. FASTILY 06:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:WestcliffUWarriorsLogo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Luke Cage by Stuart Immonen.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2020 September 10. (non-admin closure) Techie3 (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luke Cage by Stuart Immonen.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Carnage in Spider-Man The Animated Series.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failed PROD. Fails WP:NFCC 3a and 8. Not substantially different from the depiction of the character in the infobox. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Philipgiaccone1.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A private photograph presented by US prosecutors as evidence in a federal trial. Currently tagged PD-USGov, but the photo was not created by a US government employee, and I have no reason to doubt that copyright is still held by the original creator of the (1980, seemingly unpublished) photo. Delete or convert to fair use with {{Non-free biog-pic}}. Wikiacc (¶) 19:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.